So what will happened when Loving v. Virginia (1967, 388 U.S. 1) comes before SCOTUS?

[Scottie Mom]

Like Roe, Loving (right of persons of different races to marry) also was based on privacy rights in the US Const -- "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

While marriages in the past of persons of different races after Loving can not be undone retroactively (I am assuming, but who knows), if privacy is NOT a Const right...how is SCOTUS going to deal with the privacy rights underpinning Loving as to future marriages of people not of the same race?

What a motherf'ing mess!

[sop]

1. Clarence and Ginni won't allow it.

[3catwoman3]

2. Would Clarence have to recuse himself...

...from that?

[Scottie Mom]

4. Good question.

He saw no reason when he had the conflict with J6 issues...

[LakeArenal]

5. You'd think... but no.

[Probatim]

8. He might vote in the majority to "rid himself of this vexing priest(ess)"

[Ray Bruns]

3. They don't care. As long as they get their "sacred sperm" decision.

See Monty Python's Meaning of Life

[Scottie Mom]

9. Most likely -- my opinion only -- SCOTUS will not overrule Loving...

...but abortion and gay/bi/trans rights of any nature are going to be abolished as much as possible.

[onenote]

16. Most likely, no state is going to enact legislation banning interracial marriage

And there will be no occasion for the Court to revisit Loving.

[SoonerPride]

6. Oh course they can un-do existing marriages.

With the stroke of a pen.

I expect my marriage to be voided next term.

[Lettuce Be]

7. How would it apply to those of mixed race?

Asking for a friend.

[Scottie Mom]

14. Wow...

...that raises a lot of issues.

I am thinking that they are could say that no such persons exist ...all the way...to making persons of mixed race choose one category of what or who they are! So sick!

The Roe decision of late reflects on so much.

[Voltaire2]

38. Miscegenation laws restrict white people.

Nobody can marry a white person except another white person. It is a racial purity law.

[TheRealNorth]

10. I don't believe it will be touched.

While there are certainly plenty of RWNJ,'s in the base that would want this, I don't see any state trying to overturn it.

I would bet they would go after Brown V Board of Education before going after Loving.

[Scottie Mom]

15. I tend to agree.

Education is totally under attack with the RWNJs.

[JustAnotherGen]

19. I don't know

This has stuck with me since 2016:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-22/trump-won-south-carolina-because-the-legacy-of-slavery-still-controls-politics-in-the-south-says-harvard-and-stanford-study

Despite the state’s projecting an air of healing and harmony, however, these events may have actually driven white voters to the candidate who makes the most racist remarks, Trump. Public Policy Polling noted that 70 percent of Trump’s supporters in South Carolina want the Confederate flag back up, while 38 percent wish the South won the Civil War.

That 38% probably exists in every GOP controlled state - with 10-15% of enablers on top of that. Jesus juice or something?

I look at this as the PRODUCT of a mix race marriage whose parents met in 1967 -

Never. Ever. Ever. Forever. Ever. Trust white racists. Never. And the GOP is the party of White Supremacy.

Do not put anything past them.

There are enough of 'us' - be it black/white, asian/white, hispanic/black, etc. etc. that putting the fear of these people in us -

Will have us running to the polls.

Never. ever. ever. Forever. Ever. Trust a white supremacist.

[TheRealNorth]

21. They will go after Gay Marriage first

And maybe they will put into that ruling the reasoning that would allow a state to challenge Loving if they want to.

[JustAnotherGen]

24. It was decided by

Looking back to Loving V. Virginia.

I'm sorry - I've just been black in America for 49 years. This country at its heart is white supremacist. We started the fire of equality - as the woman's suffrage movement did not encompass all women.

From 1964 on - we built the playbook for equality. They gotta go after us - they go after us - they can chip away at everything else.

I would say Brown V. Board is next.

[uponit7771]

36. MAGA wants a white majority society dismissing liberal democracy pinned by the 14th

[onenote]

11. I think its pretty unlikely that any legislature will ban interracial marriage

And the Alito opinion goes out of its way to say that it is limited to abortion and to distinguish abortion cases from cases involving other privacy-based rulings.

Can I say definitively that no state will pass a ban on interracial marriage -- no. But I think the likelihood of that is pretty remote and that focusing on the immediate impact of this decision matters more than speculation about something that is probably not all that likely (and therefore the risk of which is not all that likely to convince people to take a different position on abortion than they already take).

[Zeitghost]

12. I don't see a Red State enacting a law contrary to Loving

That would be needed to bring a challenge before the court. Unlike abortion, there is not enough popular support for such a law in even the reddest of states.

[Scottie Mom]

20. I'm in my 70s and I thought pretty much the same about Roe v. Wade

Until now.

[TheRealNorth]

25. I agree

But I think they will go after Gay Marriage .

[Zeitghost]

28. If you were not aware

That there were multiple red states with the public support to ban or severely limit abortion, it's because you were not paying attention.

While many of us never thought they would not be able to get the Supreme Court votes needed, there was definitely public support in many places for ending Roe.

[JustAnotherGen]

13. You have to look at the decision

The decision classified marriage as a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment. That's the core. There was also the question of legitimacy of children. Different times right?

Now I don't know if they can undo my parents till my dad died marriage (1969 to 2011) but my greatest fear is that they DO take away the right retroactively - and my mom loses access to my dad's veteran's benefits. They were married in Kentucky - Fort Knox. I also wonder if their home/assets would be legal?

Would MY marriage be legal? Could the Government say - for example - our mortgage documents are not legit since they referred to us as spouses? I don't see the state of NJ doing that - but I DO see if a bank has headquarters in a race backwards state - their state saying they couldn't service it anymore?

Would my mom and husband be throw in jail as 'race traitors' who broke the law?


There's a lot to unwrap - but it seems to me that their next line of attack is either Loving V VA or Griswold - followed by Obergefell v Hodges.


Those are the next three in the crosshairs.

[Scottie Mom]

17. My thoughts are much the same.

Repukes are not going to offend those with mixed race marriages or persons who are of mixed race. That is too precarious and dangerous for them to argue and not massively lose votes from all groups of voters.

Same sex marriage and sexual rights such as birth control are next on the list IMO.

[yardwork]

27. We married gay folks are reading the tea leaves, too.

If the final decision is as broad as this leaked opinion, then Obergefell can fall, too. What happens to the marriages of gay people? Would we be retroactively de-married? Seems likely that no attempt would be made to undo marriages retroactively - too confusing - but they could sure prevent anyone else from getting married in the future.

The Republicans are trying to roll back the civil rights won since the 1950s. They want a return to Jim Crow. I'm convinced that racism is at the heart of it. Women, gay folks, transgender kids, immigrants - we're all collateral damage. In fact, in a nation ruled by racism we are ALL collateral damage, even the racists though they never admit it.

Dark days ahead unless we can turn the tide.

[JustAnotherGen]

29. I know

Years ago at DU and In Real Life - I was very clear -

We have to hold the line (black folks). If we don't - an entire house of cards of Civil Rights were going to fall.

Van Jones was popping off at the mouth a few days ago - he needs to shut up now and use his platform to help ALL of the 'others'.

At the root of their Anti abortion cruelty - is 'Replacement Theory'. They know the tide is turning against them - and they are going to do anything they can to maintain white male cHristian supremacy. They want domination over every one.

[yardwork]

33. You are so right. And, frankly, Black people have saved this nation again and again.

There is no more dedicated, reliable voting bloc for freedom than Black people. Especially Black women.

[joshcryer]

18. A lot of 14th Amendment cases... like segregation...

...will be up for grabs.

This is one of the worst and ill thought decisions in awhile.

The 14th Amendment wasn't about "just slavery." It was about Federal equal protection under the law.

[JustAnotherGen]

22. Amen

They do not see us as equal - never have. That's the reason for the 'rage' about Obama. And the degradation of his mother.

[maxsolomon]

23. It has to be challenged.

I don't think it's a focus for the Right. Abortion was the target.

The slope is not that slippery.

[Patterson]

31. Public schools are on that slope.

[onenote]

26. Apparently some here think Thomas and the conservatives

would vote to find Thomas's marriage could be banned by a state.

Not going to happen.

Actually, what isn't going to happen is the enactment of legislation by a conservative state that effectively attacks Clarence and Ginni Thomas.

[JustAnotherGen]

30. If its not retroactive

They would.

[haele]

32. With gerrymandering and voter suppression, there are certainly states where it would happen.

They'll just claim "States Rights", because this court has already made plenty of noises that they agree whatever the state legislatures want should be the law of the state.
Federal Law won't be affected, but Georgia or Mississippi? Indiana? Oklahoma? Idaho?
Plenty of GOP reps. are elected and owned by White Nationalist or the Federalist Society. There are already discussions out in the open where legislators and people running for office say that Loving v Virginia imposes on their rights to decide marriage laws in the states.
Wait until they start promoting their right to impose Chattel status on non-elite women, children, and prisoners/wards of the state...
States where foster kids or orphans/unadoptables can be sold to wealthy families as workers/servants to pay for "room and board" until they teach the age of majority and are then kicked out, just to risk being thrust into the prison labor life cycle or other state as they aren't educated or raised to be productive or citizens while they work for the legitimate class.
A permanent underclass, where only the really attractive or really talented might be able to claw their way out
That's what the GOP leadership really wants.
They'll go after Loving, because they don't want to think that "people of color" should dare to be associated with their pure bloodlines.

Haele

[yardwork]

34. Exactly. Thomas's whole career is built on pulling up the ladder he climbed.

[uponit7771]

35. NO!! NO!! NO!! Alito said you can't apply his water is dry RvW opinion to anything else !!! / sarc

[Scottie Mom]

37. Yeah, right...

...None of TFG's nominees for SCOTUS lied.

[IngridsLittleAngel]

39. Just guessing...

Even with Thomas on the court, I'm 75/25 Loving gets undone. I think Thomas' hate for other black people outweighs his love for Ginni. Really.

I don't think this one will happen for a while, though. Should SCOTUS actually carry this out and undo Roe, I imagine Griswold v Connecticut is the next one they'll have in their crosshairs. They can cause a lot more misery for the masses by revoking Griswold than Loving...

That said, some of the MAGA goons have made it clear they want Loving gone as well. But are we surprised? They want it ALL gone. Every damned piece of progress for everyone but the white man, erased.

"Rights for me, not for thee!"

[AnyFunctioningAdult]

40. This seems unlikely

Overturning Roe has been in the GOP's party platform for most of, if not all of the years a platform was released since the initial decision. The vast majority of Republicans have campaigned for the Senate and the House with overturning Roe as a high priority. Have any of them ever mentioned the Loving decision? When was the last time that case was part of the party platform to overturn?

Overturning Roe was the goal. Overturning Obergefell has also been in their platform and is likely the next goal. Few things would surprise me at this point, but I do not see this one specifically as being threatened. Clarence Thomas would be affected by this as would Mitch McConnell.